Complete versus culprit-only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi-vessel disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bravo CA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6481381 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) is common in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), thereby negatively affecting mortality and outcome. Currently there is increasing evidence that complete revascularisation should be considered in haemodynamically stable patients. There are few larger randomised controlled trials available showing a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events after complete revascularisation, mainly driven by a reduction of repeat revascularisation. However, these trials are not adequately powered to show a mortality benefit or reduced risk of myocardial infarction. As there are several possible strategies, the presence of MVCAD often poses a therapeutic dilemma for interventional cardiologists and there is still ongoing debate on when and how to perform complete revascularisation. Pending further trials that may clarify which strategy is best, an individualised approach should be adopted.
| S-EPMC6234493 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The best approach of multivessel coronary artery disease in the context of acute myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation and primary percutaneous coronary intervention is one of the main reasons for controversy in cardiology. Although the main global guidelines do not recommend routine complete revascularization in these patients, recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated benefit of this approach in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. For this reason, an adequate review of this evidence is essential in order to establish scientifically based strategy and achieve better outcomes for these patients who present with acute myocardial infarction. This review aims to present objectively the most recent evidence available on this topic.
| S-EPMC5783441 | biostudies-other
Project description:The presence of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is strongly associated with higher 30-day mortality, reduced myocardial reperfusion success, reinfarction, and occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year compared with single-vessel CAD. Despite higher morbidity and mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and coexistent multivessel CAD, major guidelines recommended against percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on non-culprit lesions at the time of primary PCI in patients with STEMI who are hemodynamically stable. The presence of multivessel CAD often poses a therapeutic dilemma for interventional cardiologists. A few larger scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have been conducted. The conclusions regarding multivessel PCI generally trend towards lower risk of MACE, repeat revascularization, with similar risks of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality. However, none of the RCTs were adequately powered for hard outcomes of death and MI.
| S-EPMC5542970 | biostudies-other
Project description:Several organizations have developed guidelines for the management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the optimal strategy regarding revascularization in the setting of multivessel disease, specifically with regards to culprit vessel versus complete revascularization, continues to evolve. While previous observational studies promoted culprit vessel-only intervention in patients with STEMI, recent randomized controlled trials suggest potential benefits with multivessel revascularization, either at the time of the index event or in a staged fashion, in patients without cardiogenic shock. This may be due to the known instability of non-culprit lesions in the setting of acute coronary syndrome, and the diffuse coronary processes involved. As additional literature examines culprit vessel versus multivessel revascularization strategies, clinicians continue to be tasked with determining optimal treatment plans for their patients and understanding the factors that promote selected revascularization strategies. This review summarizes and discusses observational studies, randomized control trials and current guidelines in order to evaluate optimal reperfusion strategies for patients presenting with STEMI in the setting of multivessel disease.
| S-EPMC9524594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Approximately 30-50% patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STMEI) were found to have non-infarct-related coronary artery (IRA) disease, which was significantly associated with worse prognosis. However, challenges still remain for these patients: which non-infarct-related lesion should be treated and when should the procedure be performed? The present study aims to investigate Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization (CR) in comparison to culprit-only revascularization (COR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multi-vessel disease (MVD). METHODS:Three appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected from the PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library /CENTRAL databases. 1631 patients (688 patients underwent FFR-guided CR and 943 patients underwent COR) following-up 12-44 months was evaluated. RESULTS:FFR-guided CR significantly reduced major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.35-0.62, P < 0.00001) and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization (OR 0.36, 0.26-0.51, P < 0.00001), as compared to COR. However, there is no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.24, 0.65-2.35, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with STEMI and MVD, FFR-guided CR is better than COR in terms of MACE and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization, while there are almost similar in all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION:All analyses were based on previous published studies, thus no ethical approval and patient consent are required COMPARE-ACUTE trial number NCT01399736 ; DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI trial number NCT01960933 .
| S-EPMC6397458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe best strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD), who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the acute phase, is not well established.ObjectivesOur goal was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (culprit PCI) with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) for treatment of patients with STEMI and MVD.MethodsPubmed, Elsevier, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing culprit PCI and MV-PCI strategies during the index procedure. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1 (Cochrane Center, Denmark).ResultsFour randomized and fourteen nonrandomized studies involving 39,390 patients were included. MV-PCI strategy is associated with an increased short-term mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.77, p = 0.002), long-term mortality (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.74, p<0.001), and risk of renal dysfunction (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.97, p = 0.03) compared with culprit PCI strategy, while it reduced the incidence of revascularization (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.80 to 3.90, p<0.001).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis supports current guidelines which indicate that the non-culprit vessel should not be treated during the index procedure.
| S-EPMC3961318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although multivessel coronary artery disease has been associated with poor health outcomes in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the optimal approach to revascularization remains uncertain. The objective of this review was to determine the benefits and harms of culprit vessel only vs immediate complete percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute STEMI. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Teams of 2 reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts, completed full-text reviews, and abstracted data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effect models for nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and adverse events, and used the GRADE approach to rate confidence in estimates of effect. Of 341 patients randomized to complete revascularization and followed to study conclusion, 31 experienced revascularization, as did 80 of 324 randomized to culprit vessel only revascularization (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24-0.53). Ten patients in the complete revascularization group and 28 patients in the culprit vessel only revascularization group experienced nonfatal MI (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.72). All-cause mortality and cardiac deaths did not differ between groups (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.40-1.21 for all-cause mortality; RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.22-1.04 for cardiac deaths). Pooled data from 3 RCTs suggest that immediate complete revascularization probably reduces revascularization in patients with acute STEMI; although results suggest possible benefits on MI and death, confidence in estimates is low.
| S-EPMC6647587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with multi-vessel disease presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the efficacy and safety of ischemia-guided, vs routine non-culprit vessel angioplasty has not been adequately studied.MethodsWe conducted an international, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing ischemia-guided non-culprit vessel angioplasty to routine non-culprit vessel angioplasty, following primary PCI for STEMI. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in percent ischemic myocardium at follow-up stress MPI. All MPI images were processed and analyzed at a central core lab, blinded to treatment allocation.ResultsIn all, 109 patients were enrolled from nine countries. In the ischemia-guided arm, 25/48 (47%) patients underwent non-culprit vessel PCI following stress MPI. In the routine non-culprit PCI arm, 43/56 (77%) patients underwent angioplasty (86% within 6 weeks of randomization). The median percentage of ischemic myocardium on follow-up imaging (mean 16.5 months) was low, and identical (2.9%) in both arms (difference 0.13%, 95%CI - 1.3%-1.6%, P < .0001; non-inferiority margin 5%).ConclusionA strategy of ischemia-guided non-culprit PCI resulted in low ischemia burden, and was non-inferior to a strategy of routine non-culprit vessel PCI in reducing ischemia burden. Selective non-culprit PCI following STEMI offers the potential for cost-savings, and may be particularly relevant to low-resource settings. (CTRI/2018/08/015384).
| S-EPMC9595582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMultivessel disease (MVD) is common in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but optimal treatment management remains undetermined.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 602 consecutive STEMI patients with MVD were enrolled between January 1, 2010 and October 1, 2014. Three hundred and eighty-two patients underwent culprit-only revascularization and 220 underwent staged complete revascularization. Primary end points were a composite of cardiac mortality or nonfatal reinfarction.ResultsThe mean duration of follow-up was 35 months (12-71 months). Following multivariate analysis, staged complete revascularization was associated with a lower rate of the composite of cardiac mortality or nonfatal reinfarction [HR: 0.430, 95 % CI: 0.197-0.940, P = 0.034] and unplanned repeat revascularization [HR: 0.343, 95 % CI: 0.166-0.708, P = 0.004] compared with culprit-only revascularization.ConclusionsCompared with culprit-only revascularization, staged complete revascularization significantly reduced the rate of the composite of cardiac mortality or nonfatal reinfarction, and the need for unplanned repeat revascularization.
| S-EPMC5053086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over 50% of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients suffer multi-vessel coronary artery disease, which is known to be associated with worse prognosis. Treatment strategies used in clinical practice vary from acute multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), through staged PCI procedures to a conservative approach with primary PCI of only the infarct-related artery (IRA) and subsequent medical therapy unless recurrent ischaemia occurs. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages. This review paper summarizes the international experience and authors' opinion on this clinically important question. Multi-vessel disease in STEMI is not a single entity and thus the treatment approach should be individualized. However, the following general rules can be proposed till future large randomized trials prove otherwise: (i) Single-vessel acute PCI should be the default strategy (to treat only the IRA during the acute phase of STEMI). (ii) Acute multi-vessel PCI can be justified only in exceptional patients with multiple critical (>90%) and potentially unstable lesions. (iii) Significant lesions of the non-infarct arteries should be treated either medically or by staged revascularization procedures-both options are currently acceptable.
| S-EPMC3038335 | biostudies-literature